You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Conceptual clarity is the foundation of scientific discourse. Therefore, I wish to propose a new way to speak about and quantify consciousness. This new definition is based on the ability of a system to accurately monitor and predict its environment and itself. While I am at it, I will also explain philosophical zombies, free will, and the purpose of life.

Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness in There are no goals as such its all play.

PS: i thinks therefore we are VR(Virtual Reality), i "am" not GOD but i "is".

Just finished your essay. I think you're completely correct that we need to start with an initial description of consciousness that fits your Q1-3 (even if we have no final definition yet).

Also, I thought this was an interesting statement: "Rocks rarely change internal states, hence cannot create models of their environment, at least not in the typical lifetime of solar systems."

In a sense this is correct, but only at a macroscale. At some physical microscale rocks are quite active: being shot with cosmic rays, breaking bonds, changes in the waveform, etc etc. It might even, in a sense, create a model of its environment (say, of the local wind patterns via erosion). So I had a question for you: do you think that inherently the sort of schema you're proposing breaks down into some form of panpsychism, precisely because of issues like this? Or is there some way to combat this 'slippery slope'?

Btw, my own essay is about questions of scale, and relates to Tegmark's and Tononi's work on integrated information theory: "Agent Above, Atom Below" (also a March 6th posting).

Hi, Sophia, I truly enjoyed your essay. Right from the title, I thought it could be related to mine, actually your very title has much to do with my very last sentence. What I wrote is focused on the observer, which is not the focus of yours, but I embrace most (if not all) of the ideas you offer. I liked a lot your definition of consciousness in terms of monitored/non-monitored, and predictive/non-predictive morphisms. Thanks for that!

It's funny when I am HHHH. Puma Punku ;) I seem to understand everyone's essay and think that they could win this contest... and when I am down on the ground the next day... it seems like jibberish and they don't stand a chance against my simple English version of consciousness... that combines all theories into one... religion and science find a way to coexist with each other. In fact I include all religions - not just one - though It does seem like I focus on Christianity... realize I mean everyone.

Thank you for an enjoyable essay!! Given the hard question that we are addressing in this contest, I think it's very important to clearly define what it is that we are after (something I wish I can always do better myself) and you have done a good job. I also like your Q1-3 test and tests of the same ilk, which would be I think would be very necessary tool going forward if we are to study consciousness. While our labels for certain terms (and the 4 levels of awareness) might differ, I find we are in agreement over most issues. I concur with your thoughts that the brain is some type of predictive estimator of its environment.

"The ability of the human brain to model its own self-modeling is presently poor. This is the very reason we’re having this essay contest."- This line reminded me of Seth Lloyd talking at a FQXi event about something very similar using the Hartmanis Stearns theorem from computer science. Here is the video link. I thought you might enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wyJlUUEpSE

I have a submission titled 'Intention is Physical', in which I take a slightly more mathematical and a physically grounded approach to the question at hand. The math is a necessary evil but I have tried my best to explain how some of the ideas we concur on can be understood from the simple equations. Please take a look if you have the time.

You say, "Rocks rarely change internal states, hence cannot create models of their environment". As you also mentioned, "we would first have to distinguish connections between elements which carry information from those which carry supply. At present, however, it isn’t possible to clarify this definition".

Could we infer that we do not know how information is carried or processed? If so, then we cannot be sure if internal dynamics in a rock, jiggling of molecules and interacting with the neighbors, does not result in any information exchange. The rocks also receive inputs in the form of radiations from every where, and vibrations, and react to mechanical forces, which must get translated into the changes in jiggles.

In my essay though, I have attempted to show each state of matter represents information, and each interaction results in information processing. Though I agree with your point that a rock does not seem to have sufficient complexity in its function to represent self-similarity.

"This also means that generically a system can’t predict its own reactions with absolute accuracy. This is why we have the impression of free will". Sorry, I thought a fee will would have meant a model of predicting its own action and watching it being played out.

"Otherwise the moon could be said to have the goal of falling onto Earth." I thought, given your definition of a system with self-similar model, this example fails anyway.

Great essay! You write with clarity and economics. Not exactly addressing the kernel of the essay’s question, but I do not care. Your ideas are very important nonetheless and cogent to the question. I am saving your essay in my personal library…again thank you.

I would have like it better if you had included the emergent level of ‘imagination’ in your essay. I am sure the nine page constraint was the only reason you did not go there. Also, the idea of continuous consciousness might need a caveat. The physical universe is huge, but on the quantum level discrete. Hence, any sub-system must be discrete. They are small points for completeness. Your essay is the best I have read so far. I think you have reached your goal…keep agonizing. Graham

this was enjoyable to read. I've read other people arguing that we only fool ourselves into believing that we have free will, and I didn't find it convincing. In the context of your essay (impression of free will as a result of our self-models projecting different possible future evolutions of ourselves) it makes sense. I'm still not sure if I buy it, but at least you have a point. (Plus, you don't take up a final stance on whether we do have free will or not, if I understand you correctly.)

You write: "We do not normally speak of ‘goals’ when referring to non-conscious systems" -- Where would you put viruses or bacteria but also higher plants in your classification? Are they conscious? Do they have goals? I'd like to attribute goals to them but I think they would not end up "conscious" in your scheme. Maybe my confusion arises because you sometimes speak about "levels of consciousness" and sometimes about "levels of awareness", although I don't have the impression that you want to use these terms interchangeably. (In your figure "The 4 Levels of Awareness" which according to the text is a "four-level classification of consciousness" the first two levels are characterized as "unconscious".)

Your essay looks at the whole topic from a rather different angle than mine, but I like it.

I think, therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum) – so says Rene Descartes. Very interesting analysis in the spirit of radical Cartesian doubt and ideas to help find a way of understanding the essence of consciousness. It can be stated that the philosophy of Descartes continues to evolve. Can't say that about the physics of Descartes. I intend to revive it.

From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural. Probably, I made a mistake that has bound New Cartesian physics with the paranormal and supernatural, because it does not attract the attention of others. Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates a picture of the outside world not inside and the outside in space. This space, according to Descartes, is identical matter.

Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko. (Note that I did not know English and use online translator)

This is a clear, well-written essay with a sense of humor that gets straight to the point. There are other essays that spend three pages on what “is” is, this essay has definitions, examples and a joke on the first page alone! Very well done.

Consciousness is not intelligence and the existence of consciousness alone does not explain the development of life. Consciousness can be thought of as self-aware or Cartesian (I think therefore I am) intelligence, a subcategory of intelligence. Consciousness also came late to the game with multicellular life, billions of years after life first appeared.

The mirror test is flawed because the test assumes human perception. A kitten will react to a mirror then after awhile realize the image is not a real cat and ignore the mirror from then on. Most dogs have no interest in a mirror because there is no smell only image. What would a dolphin do with a mirror?

1…. The definition should also enable us to answer following three representative questions:

Q1) Is an anesthetized person safely out so that they do not experience pain?

Q2) Is a person with locked-in syndrome self-aware and/or aware of their situation?

Q3) Has an artificial intelligence developed consciousness comparable to that of animals?

2. “What is consciousness?” We are products of Darwinian evolution. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is commonly interpreted as an adaptive selection of actions beneficial for reproduction. But this pays too little attention to the question what it takes to develop these reactions.

3. Rocks rarely change internal states, hence cannot create models of their environment, at least not in the typical lifetime of solar systems.

A Good proposal , I fully agree with you…………

………………… At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at my essay… “Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe” where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement…..

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

Your essay is certainly thought-provoking, and your writing just makes me happy. As to the topic, I’m not sure about your approach… but it’s way more sensible than most things I’ve read about so-called consciousness, including Tononi and Tegmark.

I fully agree that it makes no sense to describe consciousness apart from its connection to the world. One of the...

Your essay is certainly thought-provoking, and your writing just makes me happy. As to the topic, I’m not sure about your approach… but it’s way more sensible than most things I’ve read about so-called consciousness, including Tononi and Tegmark.

I fully agree that it makes no sense to describe consciousness apart from its connection to the world. One of the themes of my essay, in fact, is that human minds can’t be understood apart from their connection with other human minds. As kids, for example, we build up our self-models mainly in relating to others who already have a highly evolved sense of who they are. You very rightly say, “consciousness is relational.”

There are two things in your essay I’d really like you to clarify. One is your third level of non-predictive self-modeling. Can you give me an example of what that refers to? Do you conceive this as specifically human? I couldn't tell.

The other one is your statement that “that consciousness is extendable”. I can imagine some things that might mean, but it’s not clear to me what you have in mind.

It definitely makes sense to say “Consciousness isn’t binary but continuous”… though I’m less sure about quantifying it by “the fidelity of the morphisms.” I think a lot more is going on than modeling… but it might well be that the richness / accuracy of our mental models is a good indicator of our level of conscious connection with the world.

I guess the most basic question I have about your 4-part structure is whether it makes sense to put non-predictive modeling first, and then predictive. It seems that the kinds of modeling / learning that we see even in bacteria are implicitly predictive – that is, we living things build models in the first place based on our needs and anticipations.

Playing with my one-year old granddaughter, for example, I was struck by her alertness to other people’s intentions. She seemed to see right away what I was trying to do, at a given moment, much more clearly than she saw any other aspect of the environment. Even her exploration of toys was mainly focused on finding out what she could do with them. So the world she’s modeling is mainly a world of possibilities, more than facts.

In any case, thanks for an essay that was really fun to read and think through.

Allow me to start this critical comment with the assertion that most probably, there will only be free will in so far as the consciousness of the bearer will remain inapproachable by any mechanistic, mathematical approach which by definition stays indifferent to human pain. This I consider as closer to the truth even if "we, the humans" are nothing but mere robots,...

Allow me to start this critical comment with the assertion that most probably, there will only be free will in so far as the consciousness of the bearer will remain inapproachable by any mechanistic, mathematical approach which by definition stays indifferent to human pain. This I consider as closer to the truth even if "we, the humans" are nothing but mere robots, yet others in the universe's future or past may perhaps stand closer to it.

As a matter fact, one can only provide evidence starting not from a strictly scientist approach but taking also into account all human literature which contains a mostly critical substance, that of the inner emotional life of human beings. A mostly serious reason, seems to be the impossibility to even define a human being without taking into account not just the fear of others but mostly, the fear of the ocean of darkness and death surrounding any human life. It suffices to take a close look at the writings of people like Camus or Cioran(a specialist in death in his own time) to get a better grasp of this simple truth.

That said, I shall here recall the famous Marx's quote on freedom being first defined inside a realm of necessity which, despite its original meaning can be elevated even if at an individual level, which is at the level of a chess player. It is only in that primary and somewhat 'militant' level one can argue of plans and predictions for what are plans without predictions and corrections of a course? So then, given such a serviant attitude of any such militant player, we understand that no true freedom of choice is genuine if not coming outside of 'this world' leaving only one place which is in fact inner and hence irreducible. It is in this inner non-'topos' where imagination and dreams serve to recompose the world as another dreamed reality and so ask for the transformation of the exterior either in piecefull or in violent ways. This only allows the bearer of some consciousness to withstand the stresses of his own biologically inherited reward-penalty system without which no volitional attributes would be ever possible (severe depression suffices to provide proof of that) and at the same time rearm this same system towards goals that are not to be derived from the mere exteriority of any given datum. One must here, attribute this realization partly to the words of Giordano Brunno who was the first to declare that our mind contains more than the universe.

It is then confrontation with the phenomenal immovable exteriority rather than just mere planning that allows for this inner residue to flourish, making possible for us "who are into the night, to come into the day." But any genuine freedom if at all, can only be exausted in the choice of an invented instead of instilled purpose as a means to signify an otherwise meaningless universe.

I was pleased to see not just memory, but modeling, in your account. This reminds me of the predictive coding work, and Karl Friston (et al) with their theories in cognitive science. I'm particularly pleased by your hierarchy here of levels of prediction; experience as predicting not just the world, but our own internal responses to it.

We talk a lot about consciousness and awareness in terms of self-reference (e.g., the ability to point to terms in our own mind) but I had not seen it done for self-prediction. I'm in the middle of Andy Clark's new book on prediction and we'll see if he gets there too.

I have enjoyed reading your thought-provoking and very well-written essay.

In my way of looking at things (which could be wrong), I would make a distinction between mind (with its thoughts) on the one hand, and consciousness on the other [in the human context].

The thinking mind derives itself from the physiological functionality of the underlying brain, and is aware of the flow of time.

On the other hand, for me, consciousness refers to a [hard to define] self-aware state, which is not associated just with the brain, but with the whole body as such. It can be felt but cannot be pinpointed to. Consciousness transcends mind and thinking, and is a state in which there is no perceived flow of time.

You probably disagree with the above, but I wonder what you think of the mind versus consciousness divide, and how does it fit in your scheme of things as laid out in your essay.

I agree also with you that the true question is the level of consciousness not only “consciousness yes or no”.

You write that it is difficult to determine existence of consciousness around us. I agree, but we should also be aware that sense of objective material world around us cannot be easily determined. Namely, what we imagine as objective material world (bunch of atoms around us) are only almost empty space and forces between particles. What is stuff from which particles are built, is unknown.

What you think about free-will? Some scientists think that it does not exist.

I have a different solution of this problem. This is panpsychism and quantum consciousness, where free-will is what is a cause of quantum uncertainty. I claim that free-will is the basic thing which is obvious for consciousness. One classical computer (example for p-zombie) works only according to some software, thus according to some logical gates, or according to some classical random generator, which also works according to some logical gates. But quantum uncertainty does not agree with any logical gates.

I think you've reached your goal. Great essay, beautifully written. I also support Daniel Dennett's views which seem consistent with yours, and both with mine. Do you agree with his views?

I'm giving yours a high score as I think it's underrated, though here among mainly physicists philosophy is still far too often eschewed. You don't seem to have engaged, which is a shame as learning is a 2 way street, but I do hope you'll get to read and comment on mine.

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.